Soft on cats?

Forest and Bird, Issue 282, 1 November 1996, Page 3

Soft on cats?

Hamner Springs

Constance Macnamara

The Dog Control Act 1996 passed without a fall of government despite a provision that a dog causing death of any protected wildlife renders the dog owner liable for a fine or prison. It may be that the passage of the Bill was helped by dogs frequently getting a bad press. Less publicity is given to infected cat bites, toxoplasmosis, worms, fouled gardens and other objectionable aspects of cats. It may be that before trying to get legislation controlling cats introduced, people with the welfare of wildlife at heart may help by being more forthright about the damage done by cats. A few bitten, clawed, cat scratched legs could well join the dog bites on television. Why must the "acknowledged social role for the companion cat" (Ken Catt, May issue) continue unchallenged? The argument that cats must be exonerated because they cannot be trained suggests cats are

unsuitable animals as domestic pets rather than that they should free of legal restraint. Jacqui Barrington ("Boaties and Island Sanctuaries") in the August issue points out that both cats and dogs are carried on boats. Boat owners do, of course, take their cats ashore. A dog on the loose at Tiri or Kawau is far more visible than a cat. There is more chance of the dog being retrieved by the owner or picked up and impounded. The large feral cat population on Kawau makes a straying domestic cat less noticeable. A stray dog would be noticed by residents. Why did the article exclude the danger presented by domestic cats? Not long ago felling forests to clear the land for farming was an accepted form of social behaviour. It no longer is. I suggest more publicity about many aspects of cats could reduce the unquestioning social acceptance of them. People seem more timid about criticising cats than criticising dogs. Perhaps this is the first social attitude that needs changing.